Public Radio: The Crisis At KPFA Radio, Berkeley, CA – Two Views

Is public radio doomed in Northern California, and around America, or is this just a “KPFA problem” confined to Berkeley?

The KPFA controversy opinions that were subordinated to a readers commentary section of The Berkeley Daily Planet is something this blogger happened upon in a search for local news items. While it’s not intimately known by this blogger, its so important it deserves a wider, national audience. Thus, this post is deliberately designed to provide just that.

KPFA: A Very Brief History

For the unaware, KPFA is a 61-year-old listener-funded music and talk radio station located at 1929 Martin Luther King Jr Way in Berkeley, California. It signed on the air as the first station in the Pacifica Radio Network, which has since grown to 150 stations.

Since its founding the station and the network have always maintained a muckraking, liberal take on news of the day. But more important, KPFA has seldom feared to present or give voice to a view that was shut out of public awareness by the mainstream media. Thus, its maintenance is of utmost importance.

The KPFA Problem: Two Views

KPFA has a problem is that its listenership has dropped in part due to the economic recession causing budget cuts that have eliminated some programs and in part due to the overall growth of competing Internet content. But it’s the changes in some programs, like Flashpoints and Music of the World, that has been the “flashpoint” for controversy between persons involved with KPFA in various capacities.

While infighting within KPFA’s Board of Directors and staff seems to be a chronic issue, the rancor has become sharper and more directed over the past year-and-a-half and as the elections process for the KPFA Board has come closer; now it’s here.

These opinions presented by two KPFA Board member candidates, Matthew Hallinan and Tracy Rosenberg, and are part of the latest in a round of discussions leading up to the elections. Since their are 27 listener candidates and seven staff candidates for the board, the views will come out more often. But Matthew Hallinan, who’s running on the “Save KPFA” slate, got the ball rolling with his Berkeley Daily Planet publication. Tracy Rosenberg, the Executive Director at Media Alliance, is running for re-election to the KPFA Board.

Here’s Matthew Hallinan followed by Tracy Rosenberg.

The Crisis at KPFA

By Matthew Hallinan

Wednesday August 25, 2010

Without the intervention of the broader progressive community, KPFA as we have known it, is about to disappear. It is confronted by two serious crises. The first is â??objectiveâ?? â?? that is, arises from factors outside of the stationâ??s control. The current global economic crisis has hit the station and the whole Pacifica Network hard. While the number of listeners contributing to KPFA has remained steady (perhaps even rising slightly), the amount of individual contributions have declined significantly. Large donations and grant money, in particular, have been sharply reduced. At the same time, costs have risen. In this digital, internet-driven Age, KPFA has to continually modernize its equipment while at the same time providing the basics for its dedicated but woefully underpaid staff.

The second crisis is self-inflicted. When Pacifica adopted elected Local Station Board elections after the â??uprisingâ?? of 1999, these Boards have become the focus of power struggles by groups seeking to take control of the various stations. As the members of the Pacifica National Board, the governing body of the whole network, are chosen by the Local Station Boards, the whole governance structure of the system has become a political battleground. For KPFA, the results have been devastating.

The governing body at Pacifica has grown into a huge, costly bureaucracy that consumes an inordinate amount of money for salaries, national meetings, consultants, board elections, etc. An amount equal to one forth of listener donations now goes to pay for this governance structure. It is estimated that $2.4 million dollars have been spent on various â??board expensesâ?? since elections began in 2003. None of this had to do with programming or producing radio. In 1994, 33% of Pacificaâ??s budget was spent on administrative and Board costs. In 2009, that figure was 52%.

However, the problem is not just monetary. Only about 10% of KPFAâ??s listeners actually join the station: of these, about 10% vote in Local Station Board (LSB) elections. The fact that the great majority of listeners and subscribers do not participate, and have no way of finding out what the issues are or whatâ??s at stake in these elections, makes it possible for small, organized groups of activists to win majorities on these Boards. These are people who are not representative of the broader progressive listening community. Narrowly based Boards currently provide a majority of the members to the Pacifica National Board â?? and the PNB is increasingly intervening to influence the outcome of Local Board struggles.

A Sad Little Narrative

Last year, a new majority took control of the PNB. Its actions were critical to the ability of the present group that controls the Board of KPFA to attain its one-vote majority. The first act in this little drama was when the PNB over-rode KPFAâ??s Interim General Manager and allowed the formation of an Unpaid Staff Organization at the station. An UPSO, as it is called, has nothing to do with enabling the unpaid staff to form an organization to defend their rights. That is a given at KPFA. It has, instead to do with determining eligibility in staff elections for the Board. In the bylaws, eligibility of staff is determined by a certain minimum of hours an individual must work at the station. An UPSO, however, is a special category named in the bylaws that allows the criteria for eligibility to be set by the unpaid staff themselves. This makes it possible for each individual member of a large collective that works together on a show that may run for just a half hour a month to acquire equal voting rights with a full-time staff person. This move unfairly redistributed voting power within staff, undermining the representation of the paid staff. The presence of the UPSO and the ability of its director to determine eligibility, gave the present majority slate an extra staff seat on the Board.

Two more seats were shifted as a result of PNB intervention. One involved something called â??change of status.â?? In the bylaws, anyone who runs for the Board and then, once elected, goes through a change of status that would have made them ineligible to run for that seat, must resign. For instance, one of the members of our slate decided to run for political office. Holding political office is seen as a potential conflict of interest and thus is incompatible with serving on the Board. Our member, as prescribed in the bylaws, resigned.

A few months later, one of the members of the other slate who had been elected as a listener representative was given a job at the station. They became staff. Listener reps and staff reps are chosen in separate elections by different constituencies – and they do not share identical interests. Members of the staff are not allowed to run for the listener board and vice versa. Our slate held a majority at that stage, and we notified the member that she should resign her seat. The other side appealed to the PNB. The bylaws state that any change in status, â??for instance, running for political officeâ?? would result in a loss of seat. The PNB decided that â??running for political officeâ?? was the only change in status that would disqualify a member. We appealed. Why, we asked, would the bylaws say â??for instanceâ?? if they were meant to apply to only one case? The meaning and purpose of status change is crystal clear in the text. The PNB turned down our appeal, holding that the only change that could disqualify a board member was the one that specifically pertained to our member.

The third instance involved the removal of a member from the other side who had not attended a Board meeting in a year and a half. The bylaws hold that a Board member can be removed if they miss three consecutive meetings without an excused absence. We told the other side that being absent for a year and a half was no longer acceptable and that we would no longer rubber stamp any requests for excused absences. It was time to attend a meeting or resign from the board. The third meeting after our ultimatum was held in Fresno. If the member in question did not show up, he would be removed. The other side boycotted the meeting to deprive us of a quorum, hoping to thus nullify the meeting and keep us from removing the delinquent member. On one level it worked. We did not have a quorum â?? much to the dismay of the many listeners from Fresno and the surrounding areas who had come to participate in a KPFA Board meeting.

However, Roberts Rules of Order, which sets the rules governing Board meetings, specifies that if a meeting is legally set and properly announced, even if a quorum is not attained, it still has legal status:

â??In the absence of a quorum any business transacted â?¦is null and void. But if a quorum fails to appear at a regular or properly called meeting, the inability to transact business does not detract from the fact that the societyâ??s rules requiring the meeting to be held were complied with and the meeting was convenedâ??even though it had to adjourn immediately.â?

The meeting may be opened, the roll taken, and the date of the next meeting set. The rules are designed to keep the absence of a quorum from paralyzing an organization. No other business may take place, but the meeting itself is legally recognized. The member who had missed three consecutive meetings without an excuse was thus no longer entitled to occupy his seat.

Our next meeting was held after the LSB elections. Before seating the newly elected members, the current chairperson of the Board (a member of our slate) opened the meeting and called for the roll â?? which is the only legal way a meeting can be opened. As a result of the UPSO, the other side had gained a staff member from the election. They had also gained one listener board representative from the election. Without the participation of the delinquent member, however, our side would have still hold a majority (of one) on the Board. The other side refused to allow the roll to be taken, knowing we would not recognize the person who had missed three consecutive meetings.

At that point they presented a letter from the Pacifica Counsel expressing the opinion that the meeting in Fresno had no legal standing and that the member still had possession of his seat. The legal basis for this opinion was drawn from the Brown Act â?? a legal code that pertains to governmental bodies and that has nothing to do with the body of law governing non-profit corporations. The letter was a complete sham and we refused to recognize its authority.

At that point, the other side walked out of the meeting and went to another place to hold a separate meeting. Their meeting had not been previously announced and did not meet the conditions specified in the Pacifica bylaws for a legally constituted meeting.

However, we did not want to see the Board split and we wanted to avoid the possibility of a legal suit that might prove costly to Pacific and KPFA. We offered to put the issue of the legality of the Fresno meeting and the eligibility of the contested member to a neutral arbiter that would be acceptable to both sides. The PNB was once again dragged into the dispute by the other side. It refused to recognize the legality of our meeting, declaring the other sideâ??s meeting to have been legally constituted, in spite of the fact it met none of the criteria stated in the bylaws. With the PNBâ??s backing, the minority had become a majority and had successfully pulled off a coup. They were now calling the shots. We were told if we did not attend the meetings called and organized by the new â??majority,â?? we would begin to accumulate unexcused absences and, after three meetings, would be removed from our seats. Rather than initiate a costly law suit, we decided to bide our time until the next election.

Where Are They Taking KPFA?

What I have recounted above is just a small portion of the kind of dishonest political maneuvering I witnessed over the past three years. Itâ??s ugly, and unpleasant when it happens to you â?? but in and of itself, this kind of behavior would not threaten the survival of KPFA. While it results in a dysfunctional and unpleasant Board experience, the Board itself has largely lacked the power to directly interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the station. By gaining control of the PNB, however, the new forces taking over the Boards are in a position to break through the firewall that had separated them from the operation of the stations, and can begin to directly assert control over the management of the station.

Let us look at what the new Board majority has done since it came to power in January. While I cannot detail certain events that happened at an executive session of the Board (which are covered by a confidentiality agreement) suffice it to say that KPFAâ??s General Manager was forced to resign. This was supposedly connected to the misplacing of a check from a donor for $350,000. The real facts are much more complicated, and in the end, no money was lost. However, that issue had nothing to with the resolution of the other slate to get rid of the GM. She had acted as the â??firewallâ?? preventing the board from micro-managing the station and interfering with programming. It should be noted she was a valuable fundraiser, and had introduced innovative programs intended to make KPFA appeal to a wider audience (Letters From Washington, Winter Soldier Hearings, Copenhagen Conference, etc). From the very beginning, before anyone knew anything about the lost check, removal of the GM was the glue that held the opposition slate together. By accident, a member of our slate received an email from a member of the other slate, calling for them to stop squabbling among themselves and remember the need to â??stay unitedâ?? in order to get enough seats to accomplish their â??two primary purposes:â?? getting rid of the GM and electing two of the three KPFA Board reps to the PNB.

Once the GM was gone and they had strengthened their majority on the PNB, they could move their full agenda forward. This would be to establish a set of rules that would allow them to manage the station through the Board.

First they established a Programming Council – whose membership would be strong on Board appointees and unpaid staff, and weak on unionized, professional staff. They then passed a resolution that gave the Board any final say if there were a conflict between the Programming Counsel and the stationâ??s Program Director. Programming decisions had been removed from the radio professionals and placed, ultimately in the hands of the majority of an elected Board made up of people with no radio experience, lacking detailed information of how programming decisions would impact staffing issues, union contracts, budget considerations, etc. Placing such decisions in the hands of an elected Board will produce chaos and instability at the station. Every time there is a shift in the political composition of the majority of Board, programs could be dropped and adopted on the basis of whatever the political whims of that particular majority.

However, this is not the final goal of this Board majority. They have introduced a resolution that would place any personnel matter that would involve expenditures over $15,000 to be decided by the Board. $15,000 is less than Â¼ the cost of a full-time programmer. This would essentially place all personnel decisions in the hands of the Board.

The best way I can think of to describe whatâ??s happening at KPFA would be if School Boards took over and began to run individual schools. Itâ??s great to have and the parents and the public involved, and ultimately they are the oneâ??s that set the goals of the school system and evaluate the results. But they are not educators. They should not be determining the details of curricula, hiring and firing individual teachers, and telling them the best way to do their jobs.

The ultimate goals of these folks are political. These people do not represent broadly based movements and have no practical agenda for how to bring about the changes we need in this country. Many espouse fringe conspiracy theories and hold ideas that have never garnered significant support â?? even in the left. There is nothing wrong with that â?? and they should have a place within KPFAâ??s eclectic mix. The problem is that these folks want the whole enchilada. They see KPFA as their vehicle to gain a voice that will make them major players on the left. The real effect of the consolidation of their control over the Board will be the destruction of a radio station that we, in the broader progressive community, need now more than ever.

We chose the name Save KPFA for our slate. We did that in all seriousness. The future of this invaluable resource for the left is at stake.

Tracy Rosenberg responds to Matthew Hallinan below.

The Crisis at KPFA Redux

By Tracy Rosenberg

Thursday August 26, 2010

This is a response to an essay by Matthew Hallinan called “The Crisis at KPFA

I know that Save KPFA is worried about KPFA’s future. So am I. The difference is how we express those concerns. Matthew is focused like a laser on certain things: the vast Pacifica bureaucracy, and the costs of elections and board meetings. I agree these things should be looked at. It may be that you don’t need 8 employees to maintain 5 radio licenses and serve 110 affiliate stations. Certainly the 2% or so of the budget that goes to board election and meeting expenses shouldn’t escape scrutiny.

But what about the other 98%? Does that play no role in the problem?

Math will tell us that a 15% decline in listener revenues cannot be addressed with a 2% solution.

What is disheartening in Matthew’s essay is the disingenous attacks on anyone trying to examine the other 98% as “out of control” and “out to threaten the professional staff.”

As an incumbent board member, I was just trying to balance the budget.

****

Matthew knows this perfectly well. In 2008 and 2009, the Concerned Listeners – Save KPFA majority on the board presented and passed budgets for KPFA that called for massive staff reductions. $300,000 in 2008 and $425,000 in 2009.

They knew, as surely as the Independents for Community Radio board minority did, that layoffs were unavoidable given the decline in listener donations.

But the layoffs were never made. Not until the spring of 2010, after the board majority turned over and the manager changed.

Not until one million dollars, the entire cash reserve in KPFA’s bank accounts, had been spent. Leaving not one red cent for a rainy day reserve in the middle of an economic collapse.

How wildly irresponsible can a board of directors be?

I don’t know if it was carelessness, lack of understanding of math, or a loyalty to some of the professional staff that overwhelmed Save KPFA’s common sense. But it was appalling.

For Matthew to spend any time at all detailing comparatively trivial nonsense is stunning. Where is the awareness of the catastrophe they caused?

Does Save KPFA not understand the reason KPFA must be saved is their own actions as a board majority?

A Sadder Little Narrative

To indulge Matthew a bit on his pet peeves:

KPFA’s Unpaid Staff Organization is 20 years old. It predates the board election process by more than a decade. It was forged in the people of color strikes that occurred at KPFA when movement struggles demanded their place at the table of what had been a largely white, elitist, academic institution. UPSO’s purpose was to send representation to programming decision-making and to institute a grievance procedure for the large unpaid workforce.

I realize Matthew may not know this, but ICR-affiliated staff representative on the board, Renee Yang Geesler, who won the “extra” staff seat last year, is a CWA member and a paid staffer at KPFA.

An UPSO would have been a big help when Nadra Foster was summarily banned and then beaten up by the Berkeley Police Department in an incident that shamed progressives everywhere in 2008.

On the other two issues, I can only say Matthew is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion was over-ruled both times on firm legal grounds.

Noelle Hanrahan, Executive Director of Prision Radio, was entitled to complete the last six months of her board term, despite the outcome of union arbitration proceedings in her favor.

And former board members whose terms expired on December 5, 2009 were not allowed to remove a board colleague on that day. They were not legally able to take any actions on behalf of a board of directors they were no longer on.

I agree that such behavior is ugly and unpleasant. I wish Concerned Listeners – Save KPFA would not engage in it.

Where We Are Taking KPFA

Leaving aside the petty little battle waged by Concerned Listeners – Save KPFA to avoid losing their majority status in December of 2009:

Matthew expresses high dudgeon at the 2010 managerial change. But in addition to the million dollars that left the building, another problem emerged in early 2010.

That problem was a large sum of money, $375,000, that was supposed to be in one of KPFA’s bank accounts, but wasn’t there according to auditor Helin Donovan LLC.

Where was it? Why had Pacifica been told the money was in the bank when it wasn’t there?

It turned out the uncashed check had been sitting in a KPFA desk drawer since October of 2008. It was now expired. Oops!

What was the board to do? Hold someone accountable? Not according to Matthew Hallinan. But yes, according to me and others who now held the majority on the board. That is the responsibility of a nonprofit board of directors. Money has to be where it is reported to be. Otherwise the board is asleep at the wheel. ICR does not intend for KPFA to go the way of the Vanguard Foundation.

I realize Matthew and most of the rest of the Concerned Listeners crew were not around during the 2002 to 2006 period when KPFA had an active program council and no program director. So he’s afraid of what he doesn’t understand.

But in fact, the Program Council on the whole did a great job: adding the excellent Voices of the Middle East and North Africa in 2002, when Arab-Americans were suffering terrible indignities and injustices after 9-11, Guns and Butter, which is one of KPFA’s top moneymakers and has been for years, APEX Express – the Asian-Pacific Affairs Show, Pushing Limits, a disability rights program, Education Today with Kitty Kelly Epstein, Full Circle, the training program hour, Rock en Rebelion, the best rock and roll Latin liberation show around, The Women’s Magazine and more. Programs that have only added to the richness of KPFA and that reflect vibrant communities here in Northern California.

Isn’t that what we want?

Matthew is terribly concerned about the “fringes” of popular opinion. Does he forget that Lew Hill was a World War II pacifist who went to jail rather then fight in “The Good War”. Now that was an opinion shared only by other “crazies” in 1945.

He founded this place particularly and specifically to broadcast wildly unpopular perspectives that could never get on the air anywhere else.

It was a vision so exciting and so radical that it survived for 60 years in spite of itself.

Despite an eternal lack of money, despite relying largely on volunteers and an overworked and underpaid staff.

Because that is what community radio is.

So lets stop all the nonsense, get the expenses in line with the revenues, find the “crazy” voices of today that will be the luminaries of the future, and get on with doing what Pacifica Radio does.

The world needs it.

Tracy Rosenberg is the Executive Director of Media Alliance, blogs on media policy at the Huffington Post, and is a member of the Pacifica Foundation Board of Directors and the Media and Democracy Coalition Board of Directors.